New York Times Examines Mass Shootings and Gun Laws; Their Findings "Dispiriting to Anyone Hoping for Simple Legislative Fixes to Gun Violence"

Every time a horrific crime committed with a gun gets national attention, politicians will usually recommend more stringent gun laws as a response. (With the phrase "gun control" out of vogue, you usually hear these days about "common sense gun safety laws.")

The overarching conclusion from reporters Sharon LaFraniere and Emily Palmer? They learned "not only how porous existing firearms regulations are, but also how difficult tightening them in a meaningful way may be."

"The findings are dispiriting to anyone hoping for simple legislative fixes to gun violence," they admit upfront:

In more than half the 130 cases, at least one assailant was already barred by federal law from having a weapon, usually because of a felony conviction, but nonetheless acquired a gun. Including those who lacked the required state or local permits, 64 percent of the shootings involved at least one attacker who violated an existing gun law.

Of the remaining assailants, 40 percent had never had a serious run-in with the law and probably could have bought a gun even in states with the strictest firearm controls. Typically those were men who killed their families and then themselves.

Slightly over 10 percent of these mass shootings involved an "assault rifle," the rest involved handguns. (Of overall homicides in America, rifles as an entire category are involved in about 2 percent as of 2014 data, fewer than murders committed via bare hands or feet.)

The Times looks at those "more than half" where a perfectly enforced law should have prevented a killer from getting a gun. This gets at the question of whether expanding background check requirements beyond licensed dealers, per current federal law, would indeed save lives by making it illegal for anyone to sell a gun to anyone without conducting a background check into legally disqualifying factors.

Unfortunately as far as the information gathered by the Times's reporters go:

It was virtually impossible to determine whether expanded background checks would have deterred the illegally armed attackers involved in the shootings examined for this article. In many cases, police officers never recovered the weapons, and even when they did, they did not always investigate where the firearm came from. A trace by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives generally shows only the original seller and buyer, while the typical gun used in a crime is 11 years old.

The Times tells a story of one man with 12 years in prison who killed 8 people, including 6 children, with a gun they think he bought online. (The reporters admit they aren't absolutely sure of that.) That would have already been illegal.

It isn't always true that laws that are easy to break are pointless laws. But laws that are far more likely to merely end up fining or imprisoning people performing an action that would not actually harm anyone (that is, selling a gun that would never be used to harm anyone else to someone without informing the state or running a background check) than they would be to prevent harm to others should be reasonably questioned.

The story wonders whether public safety demands that our standards for barring people from gun ownership for mental health issues be more stringent, noting that current federal law "denies guns only to people who have been involuntarily committed for inpatient treatment" and lamenting that since that law was passed in 1968, it's often more complicated and less likely that that happens to an American.

After noting some states with existing or prospective laws that make it harder to legally get a gun for people who have interacted with the mental health system or alarmed their family members with their behavior, they find that:

No such provisions were in place in the states where mentally ill gunmen carried out nine of the 130 shootings last year. Police inquiries into several cases later showed that family and household members feared disaster in the making, but felt helpless to avert it.

They tell a detailed story of a particular eventual killer who said all sorts of alarming and threatening things about thinking of killing people to all sorts of people, none of which ended up preventing him from using guns he'd bought online, according to the Times, to kill three people (including an 11-year-old girl) and then himself.

They tell another story of a Georgia man who had spent some time in an mental institution, though not technically involuntarily committed, a situation that in five states and D.C. "would have meant at least a temporary ban on firearm purchases. But like most states, Georgia follows the looser federal standard."

He bought many guns, had his concerned father lock the ones he knew about away. But using a pistol his father did not know about, he killed two people in a liquor store before himself being shot at by another armed customer and fleeing. (Police told the Times that this was only one of 2 cases of these 130 in which an innocent armed citizen "fired back in a clear-cut case of self-defense.")

The Times tells another detailed story of a man who had made threatening comments, including one that got him a visit from the cops. He was nonetheless legally able to buy a gun, passing a background check because he'd committed no disqualifying on-the-books crime. He then went on to murder a family of neighbors; the Times notes the murdered father owned a handgun for self-defense but did not have the opportunity to use it.

The very long Times story goes on and on with more anecdotes of people who killed people while doing things (even before the illegal act of murder) that perhaps could have been against the law, like open carrying a rifle in the street, or having a legally owned weapon locked in your vehicle on a college campus.

The first anecdote implies that had open-carry not been legal, police would have come and apprehended him before he killed three people with the weapon he was carrying; the second that an angry guy in a fraternity prank dispute might not have had his gun available near him to go nuts and start shooting in what was just a dumb college kid conflict.

The detailed anecdotes in the story are all infuriating and will doubtless make most readers think, if a properly enforced law could have prevented this, it would be worth it.

The story does not think out loud about the costs and tragic stories that might result if, say, police felt it a duty to confront everyone who is carrying a weapon in public where it's legal. It doesn't bring up the personal and social costs of creating another officious excuse for police to search and punish people for the crime of buying or possessing something that they would never use to harm another, like the vast, vast majority of gun owners, including those in prohibited categories.

The story trails off into a series of those detailed, sad stories long after it mentions, then doesn't mention again, the overall conclusion at the start from studying those 130 incidents of mass murder and injury: that even the toughest laws in a world where guns exist could not even conceivably have prevented 40 percent of them, and that when laws in theory perhaps should have prevented a potential killer from owning a gun, they were easily breakable.

And remember: such perfectly enforced laws would be far more likely to bedevil and harass the innocent for selling and owning items they would never use to harm anyone illegitimately than they would be to prevent one of the Times detailed tragic (but thankfully quite rare compared to the number of gun owners in America) anecdotes from happening.

More about what we know, and don't know, about the efficacy of gun laws in my Reason feature "You Know Less Than You Think About Guns." As this Times story also makes clear at the start then tries to muddy up via tragic storytelling, we don't have much of a reason to believe that most proposed new gun laws would do much good, and as the Times story does not acknowledge, by creating many more excuses for the law to harass the innocent, we know they could do harm.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

281 responses to “New York Times Examines Mass Shootings and Gun Laws; Their Findings "Dispiriting to Anyone Hoping for Simple Legislative Fixes to Gun Violence"”

My Co-Worker’s step-sister made $14500 the previous week. She gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and apply the guide leaked on this web site. Go to this web site and click tech tab to start your work.. Go now… http://www.ImdbCash.TK

Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $90 per hour. I work through this web site.. Go to tech tab start your work… http://www.Trends88.Com

Yeah, nobody’s looking for simple legislative fixes, they’re looking for the best legislative “fix” they can get passed and then when that doesn’t work they can use that as evidence that we need just a little bit more gun control. They may, if you can catch them in a moment of honesty, admit their end game is a total ban on guns, but that’s not true. When even a total ban on guns doesn’t end gun violence they’ll move on to even harsher police-state measures to monitor and control your actions, and that’s their real end game – total control over everybody.

He bought many guns, had his concerned father lock the ones he knew about away. But using a pistol his father did not know about, he killed two people in a liquor store before himself being shot at by another armed customer and fleeing.

Funny story: I had an argument with a rather retarded Hillary supporter on that toddler remark. I noted that plastic bags kill dozens of toddlers every year. He responded by arguing that…we already do everything in our power to protect toddlers from plastic bags, ergo we need common sense gun laws, as well.

These lying motherfuckers want you disarmed, plain and simple. Everything they say is a lie. They want you helpless. Their compulsion is to control and it really gets under their skin knowing that you are armed and if you ever get enough of their shit you can tell them to fuck off. Common sense my ass. My common sense tells me that no one wants a monopoly on force for your own good.

“In more than half the 130 cases, at least one assailant was already barred by federal law from having a weapon, usually because of a felony conviction, but nonetheless acquired a gun. Including those who lacked the required state or local permits, 64 percent of the shootings involved at least one attacker who violated an existing gun law.

Of the remaining assailants, 40 percent had never had a serious run-in with the law and probably could have bought a gun even in states with the strictest firearm controls. Typically those were men who killed their families and then themselves.”

When anti-gun people cite statistics like these, I don’t think they’re usually talking about trying to make screening harder. If these statistics are right, then just makes an anti-gun person want to criminalize possession, sale, and manufacture.

They want to make it impossibly expensive to buy a gun by making you buy insurance. They want to strip the manufacturers of their protection from liability. They want to make you pass a background check every time you buy ammunition and tax ammo heavily so as to make it prohibitively expensive.

If those statistics are telling us that increased regulation through background checks for guns won’t help, then anti-gun people don’t think that means they should give up on getting rid of guns. They think that means we need to repeal the Second Amendment, stack the Court with progressives, etc.

I think president Clinton will just go with the second part. The first part is too difficult and would fail anyway. Therefore executive action (her words) and stack the court (her stated intentions). I wonder if she is smart enough to not push things too far. Her efforts might not have the outcome she wants.

My wife is watching some bullshit propaganda tv show right now (hawaii 5-0) and the twink character that plays the sidekick just said “gun nuts are gun nuts”. I suggested that he stick a chainsaw up his ass. My wife is visibly irritated with me but she isnt saying anything.

“. . . the twink character that plays the sidekick just said “gun nuts are gun nuts. I suggested that he stick a chainsaw up his ass. My wife is visibly irritated with me but she isnt saying anything.”

Her irritation comes from her view of these TV shows…they are just shows she says. Entertainment. She likes them. They make my skin crawl but I let her watch what she wants. Only occasionally they say something I cant resist commenting on.

I realized another on Wayward Pines. When Princher (sp?) chose the type of people needed to ensure the survival of humanity he selected police officers, teachers, farmers, doctors because something, something can’t live without them. At the same time, attempting to control corruptible actors, presumably those being business oriented folk (I surmise because entrepreneurs are oft ignored category by controllers, planners, dictators, commies ant the like). As if the block of yeoman and civil servants selected can’t be corrupted or capable of doing their jobs poorly.

It’s just something I detected. Like with The X-Files when they took their shots at conservatism.

That is a pretty good observation. She loved that show. I do remember being a bit irritated with the over the top social engineering aspect of the premise. I actually played around with those notions of creating an ideal society designed from the bottom up….when I was in the 6th grade.

No, really, Mrs. Freeman busted my balls when she caught me working diligently on that instead of the assigned work. I even drew out maps for ideal cities for this utopian paradise. She also frowned on the gun club (8 members) I formed in the class. That fell apart when I assigned the other members to work out ballistics for their father’s deer rifles because they didn’t want to do the math.

It could be that her disdain for my plans for humanity’s happiness stemmed from the loss of her husband in Germany 1945. He died over Dresden. I didn’t figure this out until I was in my mid30’s. I was perusing a local cemetery when I ran across a bunch of graves of airmen killed over Dresden and saw his name.

I did mention that I toyed with those ideas when I was in the 6th grade, right?

I think there is some connection between that and my love of symmetry and form in my formative years. It applies to one and not the other. As a child I wanted to design the perfect society, now I want to build boats and leave everyone else the fuck alone. I also want them to leave me the fuck alone.

If I convinced the mom unit back in the day that my brother couldn’t be trusted with the pellet gun, she wouldn’t have taken it away from him and given it to me. She would have just taken it away.

That’s what I’m tryin’ to say. If regulation isn’t effective, they aren’t giving up. They’re comin’ back with a giant strap-on and no lube.

Also, Hawaii 5-0 isn’t as bad as some, but shit’s been bothering me a lot more lately ’cause the land of the free and the home of the brave is bending over and grabbing its ankles for a shit eating crook who campaigned on taking our Second Amendment rights away.

Jury trials, the right to legal council, the right to remain silent, the right to cross examine witnesses, Fourth Amendment protections, etc., etc. mean that arsonists, rapists, and murders sometimes get away. Do you want to do away with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

I think I’d rather keep the Fourth and Fifth Amendment anyway–even if keeping them means there are more rapes, more arson, and more murder.

There are qualitative things to consider, too, and among the benefits of living in a free society are the qualitative benefits of living in a free society. And I think part of living in a free society is the Second Amendment. Even IF IF IF repealing the Second Amendment meant there would be fewer murders in this country, I’d rather keep the Second Amendment anyway–just for that reason.

No one can really account for other people’s qualitative preferences, but people willingly choose more risk for qualitative reasons everyday. Hell, if we programed omnipotent robots to keep us as safe and happy as we can be, they’d probably strap each of us down in a rubber room and put us on a constant dopamine drip.

How many deaths are prevented by existing regulations? Please cite a credible source. Do we need guns because bad guys have them? Or so they have them because we do? Source?

Jury trials, the right to legal council, the right to remain silent, the right to cross examine witnesses, Fourth Amendment protections, etc., etc. mean that arsonists, rapists, and murders sometimes get away. Do you want to do away with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

FAILS my challenge on the Second Amendment Lies about my question (deleting the “guns” context). Uses that to imply i asked about the fourth and fifth amendmentDoes not care if his lies and diversion are self-evident to even a grasshopper.

Why can nobody answer these simple questions?

How many deaths are prevented by existing regulations? Please cite a credible source. Do we need guns because bad guys have them? Or so they have them because we do? Source

Hint: They cannot be answered because the claim that gun regulations don’t save lives is ? bat-shit crazy ? just as wacky as gun grabber puppets.

Why can nobody answer these simple questions? How many deaths are prevented by existing regulations? Please cite a credible source. Do we need guns because bad guys have them? Or so they have them because we do? Source

“Hint: They cannot be answered because the claim that gun regulations don’t save lives is ? bat-shit crazy ? just as wacky as gun grabber puppets.”

The claim was that new regulations are unlikely to save more lives, and my observation was that utilitarian outcomes are not the only concern. If the answer to your question doesn’t matter, then that might be one of the reasons why no one is answering it.

Also, misunderstanding an analogy as a lie makes you look crazy and foolish. If we wouldn’t get rid of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments because of our qualitative preference for freedom–not even to save more lives–then a reasonable person should acknowledge that possibility–that we might care more about our rights and freedoms in the Second Amendment more than we care about saving lives.

Feelings like that are hardly uncommon. I’ve known people who’ve put themselves in harm’s way and joined the military because qualitative considerations were more important to them than the risk to their own personal safety. You’ve got this overriding question that seems to assume things about people that aren’t true. Not everyone cares more about safety than anything else.

If we support our Second Amendment rights and freedoms regardless of whether doing so means saving more lives, then how many lives any particular new regulation might prevent or how many lives current regulations are saving isn’t our question. That’s the gun grabbers’ question because, in our terms, they want to use the government to impose their qualitative preference for safety on the rest of us.

If further regulation won’t save more lives, as this article claims, then their push for further regulation reveals itself as even more about being a qualitative preference for more government interference in our lives. If no one’s answering your utilitarian question, maybe it’s because you’re barking up the wrong tree.

Maybe it’s also because you’re a nasty troll who’s stinks up the whole threads with your ugly and irrational bile.

“Hint: They cannot be answered because the claim that gun regulations don’t save lives is ? bat-shit crazy ? just as wacky as gun grabber puppets.”

You are on the wrong side of the rules of evidence and burden of proof.

Claiming that existing gun regulations save lives is an affirmative condition claim. The burden of proof is on those who claim it. No one is required to prove a negative,

The negative prevails by default unless those claiming the affirmative condition can prove their claim to be true unequivocally and absolutely definitively.

So unless those who believe that existing gun regulations save lives can unequivocally prove that exactly as definitively as I can prove that my car has 4 wheels attached to it, the negative prevails by default and they are one’s who are bat shit crazy.

Michael Hinh/John Galt II, you need to show two things: first, that your gun control laws actually DO save lives — it’s too easy to assume that they do, because that’s what they are supposed to do, but there are too many things in this world that we THINK should work in a certain way, but works COMPLETELY OPPOSITE of what we expect, because too often there are far more axioms needed to understand the world, than we typically know.

A market for carbon credits, for example, was SUPPOSED to decrease the use of carbon in Europe, but all it did was cause the carbon credit market to crash when everyone took the high-carbon industries needed to build infrastructure overseas — thus, the CARBON was still used, and MORE CARBON was used to SHIP the materials to Europe.

Secondly, (and this is part of addressing hidden assumptions) you also have to show that your lovely new laws don’t ENABLE or CAUSE new deaths. Sure, waiting periods and licenses are supposed to save lives (because someone buying a gun is doing so on impulse, rather than on premeditation, I’m sure), but you can’t just say that it saves lives, and ignore the people who are waiting for their licenses and/or guns, who are brutally killed by their estranged boyfriends in the interim. Because, let’s face it, SOMETIMES YOU NEED A GUN RIGHT NOW, to defend yourself FROM THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO KILL YOU! (And no gun law is going to keep that estranged boyfriend from killing you with a KNIFE, a BAT, some GASOLINE, or SOME OTHER COMMON OBJECT THAT CAN EASILY BE USED TO AWFUL, LETHAL EFFECT.)

Hillary wins the Presidency. Democrats win control of the Senate. Hillary nominates a left-wing anti-2A nut. The Senate attempts to confirm. Republicans filibuster. The Senate uses the “nuclear option” on SCOTUS appointments and confirms anyway. No peep from the media.

Then you concede defeat. If you don’t know (or don’t care) how many lives are saved by current regulations then … how can you have even the faintest clue of what proposed new regulations would do?

And I baited you with a trick question. It is TOTALLY impossible to know how many lives are saved (or not saved) by current regulations! So Brian’s claim regarding additional regulations is groundless.

For example, how many car crashed are prevented by now allowing cars to travel 100MPH on city streets? NOW do you get it?

Prove me wrong. You can’t. IF you make it to high school, you’ll learn that’s impossible to prove a negative. So you’re just another goober, called out and FAIL

One more time: How many deaths are prevented by existing regulations. For any other retards, if you can’t answer THAT, then … ummmm … how can you know how many deaths would be prevented by NEW regulations? Still confused?

This isn’t a debate. There are no *strict* rules for evidence. There is no burden of proof here, one way or another.

HOWEVER, if you want us to believe the claim that regulations save lives, you have to do several things: FIRST, you have to PROVIDE A STUDY showing how the law in question SAVES LIVES. SECOND, you have to PROVIDE A STUDY showing how the law in question DOESN’T COST LIVES. THIRD, you have to SUCCESSFULLY DEFEND THE METHODOLOGY OF THOSE STUDIES. FOURTH, you have to REPLICATE THOSE STUDIES, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, because otherwise the study might very well have been a statistical fluke.

As for being impossible to prove a negative, why don’t I just hand you a straight-edge, a compass, and an arbitrary angle, and let you trisect that angle using a standard Euclidean geometric construction. I bet you couldn’t do it! Why? BECAUSE IT’S BEEN PROVEN MATHEMATICALLY TO BE IMPOSSIBLE.

(Having said this, we require evidence that we are innocent of crime, for the most part, because it’s very difficult to keep track of everything we do to the point that we can defend ourselves from every possible accusation.)

A week or so ago, I linked a story where in (regarding Epipen coupons) the NYT cited new studies which showed that handing those out to some will harm others! Yes, the NYT discovered (through “new studies” that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and that taking from some will harm others. Reading the entire article, it was never made as a bald statement, but it was quite clear that the harm to others only happened when a commercial enterprise re-distributed wealth (or income). Since this one one of those claims made absent evidence, it was no surprise the writer didn’t justify the innuendo.

If there is no such study — indeed, if such a thing is impossible to prove (as your claim that it’s impossible to prove a negative would seem to indicate), then the default should be to repeal such laws as a waste of resources and manpower.

When in doubt, we should default to freedom. It’s up to those who wish to take our freedoms away to prove that (1) doing so will save lives, and (2) that it will be worth the cost to save those lives. (We can ban cars altogether, for example, and save 40,000 lives per year from car accidents…but at what cost? How many hours of enjoyment will be lost? How many lives will be lost, because no one can now get to the hospital in a timely manner?)

Would. Japanese? They all kinda look alike to me. I’ve heard that Japanese young men are no longer interested in having sex with actual women. So, any hard up Japanese chicks who are reading this (I’m sure there are several), you know, give me a call.

I know this place isn’t exactly crawling with members of the fairer sex, but perhaps one of you has a daughter: Is there a Girl Scout badge for marksmanship? I haven’t heard of one, and if not, that seems like really low-hanging fruit for a rather profoundly meaningful gender equity gesture. It’s really asinine if they don’t have one.

Not that I recall from my daughters’ time is the GS. But, she earned her dad’s one shot, one kill badge via thousands of 5.56 & .308 rounds fired down range. I can’t help but to smile ear to ear, along with a little tear, each time my teenage children sling their respective AR’s and obliterate sniper wannabes out at the range. Side bar: ‘sniper wannabes’ is not intended as an insult, just tapping down the bravado.

Funny thing is, when asked by me, I have yet to run across a gun grabtard that was/is willing to be the one to come to my house and take my guns u set mandatory confiscation. Every single gun grabtard thinks it’s someone else’s job to put their life in extreme danger. Funny thing, this is.

“Wonder Woman’s Breasts Are Too Big for UN Ambassadorship, Critics Say” […] “It is alarming that the United Nations would consider using a character with an overtly sexualized image at a time when the headline news in United States and the world is the objectification of women and girls,” the group maintains. “The image that Wonder Woman projects (life-size cut outs of which have already appeared at UNHQ) is not culturally encompassing or sensitive -attributes the United Nations expects all its staff members to embody in the core value of respect for diversity.”http://www.sfgate.com/entertai…..070567.php

Can’t have a ‘sexualized’ woman, can we? Why someone might think of reproduction!

In the comics, back in the late 1960s, Diana (Wonder Woman) Prince went through a series of stories wherein she gave up her powers, ran a boutique, and turned into an Emma Peel-style adventures. When that wound up, she got her powers back and took a job in her civilian ID as…… a UN interpreter! WW, V1 #204, Jan-Feb 1973

It’s comics canon, at least for the “Earth-One,” late Silver Age/early Bronze Age version of the character. Princess Diana spoke all languages, due to superior Amazonian education and being gifted at birth with the wisdom of Athena. Plus, before that Ken doll in a uniform, Steve Trevor, crashed his plane and Diana started crushing on him, she was functionally immortal, so, lots of time for hobbies.

In the first few episodes, I felt it suffered from the Superman problem, where the main character is so invincible there’s no tension. But they handled it about as well as they possibly could have by mid-season.

“the Superman problem” – I agree. One of the unique things about this superhero is that he doesn’t wear a costume and hide his identity (well, he’s living under a fictitious name, but you understand what I mean).

How many deaths did the Times report were prevented by existing regulations. They don’t know, do they? Neither does Brian here or in his book. How many criminals would not have guns if we didn’t?. Don’t know that either. So who’s being hysterical here? (Both extremes)

Even Scalia said bans on “military style” weapons would be constitutional, since they did not exist at our founding. Citizens brought whatever arms were normally in their household, which is what a “citizen’s militia” does. And what originalism means.

It’s always sad to see Reason abandon classical libertarianism, tracing back through our founders to the origins of Natural Law. Libertarian 3.0 is whatever has not been discarded for convenience (or pandering) So “modern libertarianism” abandons fundamental individual rights which, by definition, are all precisely co-equal,

Bearing arms is like abortion. In both, two extreme factions want to impose their own views on all of society, by law., each proclaiming their chosen right is somehow superior to all other rights. A total ban versus no restrictions at all;. So this winds up with the same level of hysteria as the gun control extremists, from the other side. Morally no different than permitting abortion up to the moment of birth … which does not exist there, nor should it here.

>>>>”Even Scalia said bans on “military style” weapons would be constitutional, since they did not exist at our founding.”

“Military style” weapons didn’t exist at the founding? I’ll bet the military of the time would be astounded!

There was no military …. “which is what a ‘citizen’s militia’ does. And what originalism means”.

=========

>>>”Bearing arms is like abortion.”

You are CONFUSED!

“… in both, two extreme factions want to impose their own views on all of society, by law., each proclaiming their chosen right is somehow superior to all other rights. A total ban versus no restrictions at all;

Justice Scalia’s ruling in Heller.)“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'” “…. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

I began this thread with “two extreme factions want to impose their own views on all of society, by law., each proclaiming their chosen right is somehow superior to all other rights.ll”

Count how many refuse PROOF of Scalia’s ruling … to impose their view on all of society by law. Statists.

Article 1 Section 8 refers to issuing letters of marque and reprisal, which means they fully expected private ownership of armed ships of war. The canon of these vessels were capable of leveling cities. Tell me they would be worried about private ownership of small arms that needed reloading less often.

The link to the Supreme Court is broken, but this will take you there.

As you’ll see, Scalia ruled precisely as I said, not sure why you assumed otherwise. He cites precedent, United State vs Miller, the first actual ruling in 1929. Same as Scalia, that the right is limited to weapons in “common use” … further citing prohibitions against “dangerous and unusual weapons” were already a “historical tradition” … 87 years ago.

That’s likely over a century of constitutional precedent, versus the fanciful notion that a ship is an able bodied man.

I dunno. Hihn seems to have no desire to hide his brain-farts under a fake handle. He’s, well, not real bright, but he doesn’t seem to be shy about broadcasting it to the world. Pretty sure it’s not a Tulpa sock; Tulps’s 4th-and-long from being smart, but he’s ‘clever’; just enough to get busted. This imbecile is lacking that cleverness.

I’m not typically a fan of accusing people of this kind of behavior, especially after an idiot here falsely accused me of shilling for Hillary on WaPo. But the similar wording in this case is hard to ignore.

>>>“There is some very familiar wording here:here: “fundamental individual rights which, by definition, are all precisely co-equal.””

“Fundamental” rights is the term used in Supreme Court rulings and opinions, to distinguish between what are called “unalienable” rights in the Declaration and “others retained by the people.” in the ninth amendment … versus other rights. Also called constitutional vs legal rights

All levels of government are explicitly forbidden any powers ti deny or disparage that class of rights. Which means they’re co-equal — equal to each other — as in three co-equal branches.

What is this, the new “Even the liberal New Republic…”? Scalia is an exemplar of libertarian jurisprudence now? (Not that the rest of this comment does anything to appeal to libertarian sensibilities, of course. But this point is the shortest to discuss.)

Really doesn’t matter. Whoever it is tossed out a target-rich comment, enough that I wonder if it isn’t a regular trolling to stir the pot. But I stall had to laugh at the claim that there were no ‘military weapons’ at the time; that’s the sort of nonsense we get from low-info folks all the time.

Mike, you been busted. Fuck off and save yourself the embarrassment. No one here knows what sort of medical issues you’ve had, but judging by your posts, they are not helping any sort of logical thought. I won’t bother ragging you about the screen shots and the Kochs again; you’ve become too pathetic to beat on over former stupidity. Do yourself a favor; post someplace that isn’t likely to (laugh) at you for any imbecilic claim to ‘libertarianism’. Try Huffpo; they’ll just laugh in general.

>>> Fuck off and save yourself the embarrassment. … No one here knows what sort of medical issues you’ve had … you’ve become too pathetic to beat on . … any imbecilic claim to ‘libertarianism’.

Justice Scalia’s ruling in Heller.)“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'” “…. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

I began this thread with “two extreme factions want to impose their own views on all of society, by law., each proclaiming their chosen right is somehow superior to all other rights.ll”

Count how many refuse PROOF of Scalia’s ruling … to impose their view on all of society by law. Statists.

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

…. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

…. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

…. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

>>>Scalia is an exemplar of libertarian jurisprudence now?

Technically irrelevant. It is the Law of the Land, in a ruling by a Justice revered as an originalist by Ron Paul, lewrockwell.com, Cato’s senior fellow in constitutional studies (Ilya Shapiro), Mises Institute

Not that the rest of this comment does anything to appeal to libertarian sensibilities, of course./blockquote> I assume you’re new

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

…. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

…. as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

It’s pretty telling that you don’t go to the trouble to outline which specific weapons Scalia’s talking about here.

It’s pretty telling that you don’t go to the trouble to outline which specific weapons Scalia’s talking about here.

It’s pretty telling that you cited the wrong Justice!!!! The ruling is 124 pages. I chose sections showing that prohibitions have been a tradition for over 100 years. If you can’t see it, here’s Scalia elsewhere:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: …

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service?M-16 rifles and the like?may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

The 2A is not unlimited. Banning weapons not in common usage (elsewhere), most useful in military service, would not violate the 2A. I can’t post 124 pages. Check the ruling yourself.

>> Oh yeah, freedom to purchase or not purchase firearms is imposing a viewpoint by law. Got it, makes total sense.

Sounds stupid to me. Who said it?

>> Totally equivilant to abortion, the killing of a human in and of itself.

You deny the entire history of Natural Law and the very definiion of unalienable?

>>>”Scalia’s opinion on “military style” firearms applies to the many new ways we exercise free speech. Since they did not exist at founding.

It’s a ruling not a opinion. The Law of rhe Land. Free Speech is a totally different amendment,

A ban on murder is a ban on an action that violates one’s rights. A ban on purchasing firearms is a ban on an action that is voluntary and harms no one.

There are no moral principles. No double standards. “Repeal a ban that doesn’t work” only applies where you want it to? And how do you know that — I prefer “regulations” — don’t work? How many gun deaths would there be with no regulations? Source?

Might want to understand libertarianism a bit better.

As soon as you understand the difference between the First and Second Amendments. Since when do libertarians reject the founding principle of unalienable rights?

You’re wrong. The second amendment isn’t about hunting, or even self protection (well, not only self protection); the second amendment was put in place because the States were concerned that the new Federal government would make them disband their militias. The second amendment, simply put, was included in the Bill of Rights in order to check the power of the central government. It is, at its heart, the right to revolution.

I would be very, very careful using the “That kind of gun didn’t exist when the Second Amendment was written” argument, unless you are prepared to allow the government to censor all kinds of communication that didn’t exist in 1789.

When people toss out the “2A is for muskets” line, I like to flip it on them: I point out that yes, at the time, the colonists carried muskets – the very same kind of muskets that most militaries of the world carried. So if we’re sticking with strict originalism here, then civilians should have the same rifles that militaries today have: a rifle with select fire capabilities and a heavy machine gun here and there.

Precisely backwards. Already addressed and Scalia dismissed that explicitly. Originalism, he writes, cannot do what you suggest because you’re comparing a citizens miltiia with a standing army. See the ruling. He laid out “common usage,” excluded military style weapons which did not exist at the time, said even a ban would not violate the 2A, because prohibitions have been a tradition for over 100 years.

Should children under the age of 14 be free to open carry in public schools?

Should defendants during trial be free to bear arms in court?

I suspect very few libertarians believe in no restrictions at all.

Sounds like a boogeyman you made out of straw.

P.S. Libertarians don’t generally believe adults should be free to sell crack to children, etc. either. And there won’t be any roads! How will we get around without roads, Sevo?! We’ve finally been found out.

Bearing arms is like abortion. In both, two extreme factions want to impose their own views on all of society, by law., each proclaiming their chosen right is somehow superior to all other rights. A total ban versus no restrictions at all;

The right to bear arms and abortion are dominated by the same warring factions (at the extreme) 1) a total ban (of guns and abortions) 2) no restrictions (on guns rights or abortion)

All four are claiming rights which do not exist … seeking to impose their tyranny on everyone. through government.

None are libertarian, because they deny Natural Law, equal, unalienable and/or Gid-given rights. All are authoritarian — seeking a government power that does not exist .. to mandate rights which do not exist. Note that they are split …. left and right

To classical libertarians, it confirms what we’ve predicted all along, Left and right both have authoritarian control freaks … bottom half of the Nolan Chart … they’re both obsolete (as the only options) … and shrinking … but the top half of the Chart has no shared identity. .. thus no common voice, ..so, essentially, America is governed by a minority … a tyrannical minority (which closes the loop)

Because people point out that your absurd bifurcations aren’t true doesn’t mean they’re misrepresenting your position.

Ever the blowhard. As documented, you lied about my words. I corrected you. Will do so again

What I said

Bearing arms is like abortion. In both, two extreme factions want to impose their own views on all of society, by law., each proclaiming their chosen right is somehow superior to all other rights. A total ban versus no restrictions at all;

Your lie

“A total ban versus no restrictions at all”

Which then had you playing your typical mind games, huffing and puffing based on distorting my words, which I’ve already addressed,

To join the party – – – Even Scalia said bans on “military style” weapons would be constitutional, since they did not exist at our founding. Citizens brought whatever arms were normally in their household, which is what a “citizen’s militia” does. And what originalism means.

So, since the internet did not exist at the time, you have no first amendment right to post on this site. Please go away. Thanks. No fourth amendment right to keep your car from being searched without a warrant. Etc.

LongtobefreeEven Scalia said bans on “military style” weapons would be constitutional, since they did not exist at our founding. Citizens brought whatever arms were normally in their household, which is what a “citizen’s militia” does. And what originalism means.

So, since the internet did not exist at the time, you have no first amendment right to post on this site.

Ready! FIre! Aim! Do we believe you or Scalia? Why do you-assume Scalia’s ruling protects onlyt 18th century muskets and hunting rifles???? His ruling has been constitutional law for “only” 87 years! ONLY “military style” weapons may be prohibited … and they have been for over 100 years

Ready? Because modern “common-usage” weapons are protected … then modern speech media are protected … like the Internetm desktop publishing ….. even typwriters in the 19th century!!

Please go away. Thanks.

You would impeach Scalia for this? He’s dead.

No fourth amendment right to keep your car from being searched without a warrant.

Owning a Brown Bess musket or a Pennsylvania long rifle in 1790 would be equivalent to owning an M-4 or M-24 SWS today. If it was constitutional to own the first two weapons back then, it is legal to own the latter two now. The second amendment may not make it legal to have privately owned nuclear weapons, but it should encompass a member of the unorganized militia owning the gear that a present-day private soldier (enlisted man) normally carries into battle.

If Scalia doesn’t grok that, I blame a bad case of stare decisis. Justices hate to contradict earlier decisions unless they absolutely must. They even pretend they aren’t doing it, when they damned-well are, and the “conservative” justices are more captive to SD than the proggies are, at least since the Warren Court, hence the “one way ratchet” effect of so-called “judicial activism.”

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: …

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service?M-16 rifles and the like?may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

Again, it’s pretty telling that you don’t outline which specific weapons Scalia is talking about here. There are a lot of different firearms that are “in common use” these days.

The Ninth Amendment explicitly denies power to ALL levels of government regarding abortion.

This often causes, “The fetus is endowed with God-Given rights at conception.” So was the woman. Since her right to Liberty is unalienable, and the fetal child’s right to Life is unalienable … they are precisely equal….. per the definition of unalienable ,,. a definition Jefferson and the Founders likely knew,

“The Ninth Amendment explicitly denies power to ALL levels of government regarding abortion.”

Regarding your incessant harping on Scalia’s decisions: cite a Supreme Court decision that explicitly states this or this isn’t true. (Hint: the Supreme Court has NOT used the Ninth amendment to justify legalizing abortion. Indeed, this is a can of worms that the Supreme Court DOES NOT want to open, as much as libertarians wish they would.)

(Libertarians will undoubtedly say that the Supreme Court is wrong, and should have justified abortion on these grounds — but because you worship at the alter of the Supreme Court, you don’t get to take this out.)

When you get to high school Jimmy, IF you get to high school, you’ll learn that NO rights are absolute … because all “fundmental”: rights are “unalienable.” The two words are equivalent. Fundamental is used in SCOTUS rulings.

The unalienable rights — which cannot be denied or disparaged — remember, Life Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness … and ll the unenumerated ones

I was reading an article the other day that said that loud noises can interfere with the operation of hard drives. Even yelling at it can slow it down, supposedly. I have a solid state hard drive, which is not effected by loud noises.

Yeah. I don’t remember how old you are, or if you’ve ever said, Eddie, but that song is one that I’ve been singing (poorly) for a very long time. I go through songs, you know? Like one will be absolutely stuck in my head, but in a good way. Like, that will be my most very favorist song ever… until the next one. Sometimes, they are favorite for yrs, others times, only a few days. I really like this one. I’m going to have to listen to the rest of the album, one of these days 😉

I guess the other way to respond to the NYTimes piece is that, probably, local people know their communities better than Wayne LaPierre and if the people in those communities want to pass laws restricting gun ownership, up to and including total prohibition, they should be allowed to do so without some special interest group waving the 2nd Amendment in their face.

Ah, spoken like a person who has never been in an area whose local people would have very much liked to have passed a law or two concerning him and his kind without some special interest group waving the 13th Amendment in their face. The ultimate privilege. Well, I for one have, and I was quite grateful indeed for the 13th on those occasions. And the 2nd.

It depends on how you define “person.” I. personally, wouldn’t extend legal personhood to the not-yet-born, unless and until one could determine when sapience kicks in, but that’s just me. YMMV, based on your traditions, superstitions, etc.

We’ve all lived in communities where some people have no Constitutional rights and you’re probably living in one right now. Imagine 8-year old you telling your Dad to eat a big bag of dicks when he tells you to take out the trash. You think he’s going to respect your right to free speech, your right to be free from unreasonable, warrantless search and seizure, your right to due process and trial by jury, your right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, your right to be free from involuntary servitude? You don’t think he’ll march right into your room, grab you up by the scruff of the neck and proceed to beat your ass and then make you take out the trash? See, some people see all citizens as 8-year old you and all government officials as Dad. As long as you do as you’re told and don’t talk back you get fed and clothed and housed without getting your ass beat.

The 8-year-old doesn’t live on his own dime. We explained to our kids they can have fair and rights any time they wanted, then showed them the major bills and asked if they could pay for their own upkeep. We meantime prepared them for the coming of the day these humans-in-the-making stood on their feet and declared their maturity.

Is this the newest member of the troll of the month club or just another shitty retread of the threadbare and well worn Tulpa-Joe-AmSoc line of socktards ? Smells the same but I don’t think I can tell anymore, done started going smell blind I am afraid to admit. I will admit no Libertarian or An-Cap I have ever met thinks VOLUNTARY anything is an issue, including communist or socialist communities. So long as you can leave at will. The fact we allow these types of voluntary experiments to exist in a free society should be informative to the inquiring mind. Show me a list of counter examples of all the voluntary free-market communities with all the rights of self ownership, including armed self defense, that are allowed to exist in socialist and communist countries.

I will admit no Libertarian or An-Cap I have ever met thinks VOLUNTARY anything is an issue

Brian did. The comment I responded to.

Show me a list of counter examples of all the voluntary free-market communities with all the rights of self ownership, including armed self defense, that are allowed to exist in socialist and communist countries.

Your own words, four sentences earlier. Why did you add “countries???” Do you not know what kibbutzim are? The Oneidans?

It SHOULD be dispiriting to find a simple legislative fix to the problem of mass shootings — because there isn’t one.

Mass shootings — and terrorism in general — are diffuse problems that require a diffuse solution. Targeted solutions will be ineffective. It’s swatting flies with a hammer. Anyone who can’t see that this is the wrong tool will never figure out a plausible solution.

The solution itself must be diffuse. The people who are most immediately affected — the intended victims — must themselves be able to respond to the attack. Okay, maybe this doesn’t imply that they must be armed, but rejecting that approach obligates the rejector to propose an alternative that — even if only theoretically — works.

“(Police told the Times that this was only one of 2 cases of these 130 in which an innocent armed citizen ‘fired back in a clear-cut case of self-defense’.”)

No info is given on how many of those “130 shootings last year in which four or more people were shot, at least one fatally…” happened in “gun free zones”. Nor are we told how many were NOT random public shootings by a homicidal maniac, but domestic disputes that culminated in murder/suicide, committed in private residences.

From the comment in the article about the 40% of murderers without disqualifications on their records, there are quite a few:

“Typically those were men who killed their families and then themselves.”

It would appear that nearly 40% of the “130 mass-shootings” were of that targeted family members in domestic violence, not the random murder of strangers in a public place. But WTF, why not pad the number? After all, 130 is much more impressive than 4, or 6.

If you look at the actual list of “mass shootings” you’ll see there’s a huge number of “unknown assailants fired into a crowd of african americans.” For some mysterious reason no doubt directly related to how trustworthy the press is when reporting, our stereotype of “mass shootings” is not this. It’s almost like the media doesn’t care about black people shooting each other, even if otherwise it would be reported as a “mass shooting.”

Marxists and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.

The Second Amendment foes lying about gun control – Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government.

Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media hookers tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jews, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved.

Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?

This current day report demonstrates that ancient truth. The “authorities” will be the friends of the people, up to the point that the authorities have all the guns.

NOTE ? This is not from “The American Rifleman”, or “Guns and Ammo”, but an article in “The New Yorker”.

A Reporter at Large “The New Yorker” The Front Lines On the border of ISIS territory, Iraqi civilians fight for their survival. BY LUKE MOGELSON “ISIS was telling everyone, ‘We’re all brothers,’ ” Abu Malik said. “They let people smoke and drink. At the checkpoints, they distributed presents to the kids. They ate with people, drank tea with people. They were very nice?they didn’t bother anyone. Then, a week or so after they arrived, they started confiscating weapons. They told us it didn’t matter if we’d been with the Awakening or the Army or the police?if we gave up our weapons, we’d be forgiven. Ten days later, they started taking people. Everything changed. They took my cousin. My brothers dug holes in the fields and hid. I was at my house when they came for me. It was afternoon. I saw two Hyundai Santa Fes pull up outside, and I ran out the back and jumped over the wall. That was the last time I saw my family.” When the “authorities” are the only ones with guns, those without guns are living on borrowed time.

Would someone please tell me what “common sense gun laws” are? Or, better yet, exactly what laws the gun grabbers are proposing that will not override my Second Amendment rights. I know that Hillary proposes: repeal the Second Amendment. This is not really probable so, cripple it with ridiculous executive dictates.

First, you MAT not know what the Second Amendment means, constitutinally. Even Scalia wrote that the right to bear arms is not unlimited … no rights are … in his Heller ruling,.

“Common sense” gun laws generally mean what Hillary lists. Close the gun show and online loopholes. Ban “military style” weapons, which was not successfully challenged when it was the law. Scalia’s ruling in Heller reaffirmed a 1929 decision that such prohibitions do not violate 2A. and have a tradition of over 100 years.

Closing the “Charleston loophole” is on many lists. It mandates that a criminal background check must be completed within three days — the loophole that allowed the Charleston church shooting. He had a criminal background that was not located within the three days, This is where the NRA goes bat-shit crazy.

The most contentious is using the “terrorist list” to restrict ownership when the list is so … useless as including only terrorists. Others which are not all easy to define. domestic abuser, mentally ill,etc

First, you MAT not know what the Second Amendment means, constitutinally. Even Scalia wrote that the right to bear arms is not unlimited … no rights are … in his Heller ruling,.

“Common sense” gun laws generally mean what Hillary lists. Close the gun show and online loopholes. Ban “military style” weapons, which was not successfully challenged when it was the law. Scalia’s ruling in Heller reaffirmed a 1929 decision that such prohibitions do not violate 2A. and have a tradition of over 100 years.

Closing the “Charleston loophole” is on many lists. It mandates that a criminal background check must be completed within three days — the loophole that allowed the Charleston church shooting. He had a criminal background that was not located within the three days, This is where the NRA goes bat-shit crazy.

The most contentious is using the “terrorist list” to restrict ownership when the list is so … useless as including only terrorists. Others which are not all easy to define. domestic abuser, mentally ill,etc

With all due respect- whoever it is you really are.. I know John Galt personally, I have worked with him and he is still a friend of mine. And you sir are no John Galt.. And certainly no relation of his that he would ever admit to .

until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

Ellie . true that Susan `s blurb is good… I just purchased a gorgeous Fiat Panda sincee geting a check for $8891 this-last/4 weeks and also ten grand last-month . this is actually the most financialy rewarding Ive had . I started this 9-months ago and right away was bringin in at least $87, per-hour .

A couple innocuous notes — how exactly does government or anyone else plan to wean out humanity’s innate propensity for violence? Expand background checks? Better trigger locks? Gun safes? Mandatory courses? Sensitivity workshops? Behavioral implants? Internet shaming? Gun violence is a symptom, not a cause, of larger social and civic dysfunction. Take away firearms and people start mowing each other down with self-driving cars.

Two, an emerging ‘common sense’ conversation seems to be around guns and “mental illness”. Could this be more vague? Are we talking about clinical depression? Situational? Voluntary hospitalization? Psychotic episodes? Personality disorders (good luck with that one)? The term “mental illness” seems to be the new catch-all to cover the wide spectrum of afflictions from the truly debilitating to the benign. At some point ‘mentally ill’ could describe well over 80 percent of the adult population in America including the clinicians diagnosing them and the politicians drafting the laws.

It all seems an indirect way to admit that in a free society if one citizen wishes to do violence against another, with a firearm or not, there’s almost nothing we can do about it.

Repeal the three day limit on background checks and reform the entire process. The Charleston church shooter was a drug user who would have been denied, but it took two months to find his record,

Reform the no-fly list. Allow people to challenge their listing, a big step toward making it actually useful.

The term “mental illness” seems to be the new catch-all to cover the wide spectrum of afflictions from the truly debilitating to the benign

Only to the uninformed. It’s already law, both federal and state. Clean up the laws, get definitions as determined by clinicians, not the politicians who created the mess. I doubt many Americans feel so totally helpless as yourself, with no apparent concerns about people getting killed.

Yeah, and these changes will be about as effective at preventing gun violence (and violence in general: we should never forget that you’re just as dead if you’re killed by bat, by knife, by hammer, by gasoline and matches, by car, etc, as you are if you’re killed by gun) as all the other laws we currently have: pretty much zero impact, for all practical intents and purposes.

I found a very weak correlation (a measure of how 2 sets of data are related to each other) between different types of crime and Gun control. The strongest correlation was between the Violent Crime Category of Armed Robbery and Gun Control Laws. States with LESS Gun Control Laws (I am suspecting CCWs, etc) had the lowest per capita rates of Armed Robbery. On the flip side States with Strict Gun Control Laws had a lower per capita burglary rate (I suspect because gun ownership was lower).

I arrived at my conclusions the following way: I downloaded Table 4 from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for 2015 (you can google it) into an Excel Spreadsheet. I removed areas and only kept just the States (and Washington DC). I then added a column and labled it as a ranking for that particular violent crime (e.g. per capita homicide ranking, per capita robbery ranking, etc) next to each per capita crime category column. I then sorted each per capita rate of violent crime category from Highest to Lowest (Z->A) the highest rate got a ranking of 1, the next highest a ranking of 2, etc. I then downloaded a state by state ranking on Gun Control Laws at: http://gunlawscorecard.org/ into another Excel Sheet. I resorted both sheets in Alphabetical Order and merged the data. Since I kept Washington DC and since Washington DC has far tougher laws than California which was ranked Number 1 by http://gunlawscorecard.org/. I included Washington DC in the 2nd set of data (Gun Law Rankings) and added a 1 to each value. Making Washington DC = 1, and California =2 etc in being tough on Guns. I then ran Excels Correl function between each violent crime ranking and the Ranking on Gun Laws.

Basically the result is: Criminals Ignore Gun Control Laws and these laws have very little effect on reducing violent crime.

When one examines the current per capita homicide rate, one immediately notices that the per capita homicide rate is much lower than it was in the 1990’s and 1980’s and is now roughly equivalent to what it was during the 1950’s BEFORE there was any meaningful Gun Control Legislation.

Back then a Felon could buy and possess a gun, no waiting periods, no permits, no age restrictions..nothing except most states made it difficult or impossible to get a CCW (which never deterred a criminal from carrying!)

So…with all of our Gun Control Laws in place…shouldn’t we have a far lower per capita homicide rate than during the 1950’s? (Assuming Gun Control actually reduces crime) But if Gun Control Laws have zero to little effect on reducing crime; what is the point of having them?

They only act as restrictions on people who normally wouldn’t break the law. These people obey such restrictions; but not the people who harm others.

Therefore it seems to me: we would be just as safe if we repealed every single Gun Control law today.

Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved. Showbox For PC is available.